Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22STCV29276, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV29276, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29276 Hearing Date: April 19, 2024 Dept: C

ANI KHACHIKYAN, ET AL. v. PLATINUM TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., ET AL.

CASE NO.: 22STCV29276

HEARING: 4/19/24 @ 9:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff-in-Intervention Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Minor Plaintiffs Leah and Elah Kesablyan to appear for neurological examinations are GRANTED. The requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Ani Khachikyan, Elah Kesablyan, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Ani Khachikyan; and Leah Kesablyan, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Ani Khachikyan, (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed this action against defendants Platinum Transportation Group, Inc. (Defendant) and Miguel Angel Pacheco (Pacheco) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were hired to transport Plaintiffs, and that defendants negligently caused an accident while Plaintiffs were passengers in defendants’ vehicle. Plaintiffs further allege that Pacheco was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, and that Platinum knew about Pacheco’s history of marijuana use and still allowed him to operate the common carrier vehicle. The complaint alleges claims for the following: (1) motor vehicle negligence, (2) general negligence, and (3) negligent hiring/training/supervision/retention.

Plaintiff-in-Intervention Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company moves to compel Leah and Elah Kesablyan to appear for neurological examinations at the offices of Dr. Perry Robert Lubens located at 2880 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 260, Long Beach, California 90806.

Discussion

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, a party that seeks to require another party to submit to a mental examination must obtain leave of court. The court must grant the motion if the moving party shows good cause for the mental examination. (Code Civ. Proc., §2032.320, subd. (a).) A showing of good cause generally requires “that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Vinson v. Super. Ct. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) In addition, the motion to compel a mental examination must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty of the person who will perform the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., §2032.310.) It must also specify and list by name the diagnostic tests and procedures to be used in the examination. (Carpenter v. Super. Ct. (Yamaha Motor Corp.) (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 260.)

In her responses to form interrogatories, Minor Plaintiff LEAH KASEBLYAN claims she has suffered headaches, anxiety, and difficulty with sleep due to the subject accident. The injuries are continuing. (Decl. Russell, ¶ 3, Ex. A., Response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.3.) Based on this, Minor Plaintiff LEAH KASEBLYAN has placed her mental condition “in controversy” and good cause exists to compel her medical examination. Plaintiff ELAH KASEBLYAN claims she has suffered anxiety and insomnia/nightmares, and she is afraid to leave the house and be in a car. The injuries are continuing. (Decl. Russell, ¶ 3, Ex. A., Response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.3.) Based on this, Minor Plaintiff ELAH KASEBLYN has placed her mental condition “in controversy” and good cause exists to compel her medical examination.

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff-in-Intervention has not adequately specified which diagnostic tests and procedures will be used. Plaintiff-in-Intervention states that the tests “may include testing, x-rays, and taking a history.” But “testing” is vague. Further, Plaintiff-in-Intervention is not definitive about the procedures.

The Motions to Compel Leah and Elah Kesablyan to Appear for Neurological Examination is GRANTED. Plaintiff-in-Intervention is ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs and, within 10 days, submit proposed orders which meet the requirements of the statute, including the new testing dates and the diagnostic tests and procedures to be used. (CCP § 2032.320, subd. (d).) The Court intends to finalize the orders on May 3, 2023. In the Court’s discretion, no sanctions will be awarded.